So... here's another idea people wont like.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-05-2015, 10:24 AM
RE: So... here's another idea people wont like.
(11-05-2015 10:04 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Ok everyone acts as though ever major city in the US does not have a curfew for kids under 16 already. They do. The only argument against them I have seen in this thread is "Muh freedoms" which is stupid because there are already a litany of laws specifically for the under 16 crowd, most of which if their parents are doing their jobs they will never come across. Curfew and truancy laws are not really meant for everyone because most kids don't need to be told go to school and don't be on the street at midnight on a school night. The ones that do generally don't have real parents so it is up to the state to be a surrogate. The alternative is to allow them the opportunity to break other more serious laws. Truancy and Curfew laws tend to have low or no penalties and do not result in criminal records so tell me how it is better to let a directionless kid that fell in with a bad group fuck up their life.
False dichotomies everywhere.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2015, 10:26 AM
RE: So... here's another idea people wont like.
When you're 15 it looks like a really bad idea.

When you're 51 - it looks like an obvious solution.


Don't believe me??

Stick around.

Given time, you will..

...

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like onlinebiker's post
11-05-2015, 10:42 AM
RE: So... here's another idea people wont like.
(11-05-2015 10:21 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(11-05-2015 10:04 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Ok everyone acts as though ever major city in the US does not have a curfew for kids under 16 already. They do. The only argument against them I have seen in this thread is "Muh freedoms" which is stupid because there are already a litany of laws specifically for the under 16 crowd, most of which if their parents are doing their jobs they will never come across. Curfew and truancy laws are not really meant for everyone because most kids don't need to be told go to school and don't be on the street at midnight on a school night. The ones that do generally don't have real parents so it is up to the state to be a surrogate. The alternative is to allow them the opportunity to break other more serious laws. Truancy and Curfew laws tend to have low or no penalties and do not result in criminal records so tell me how it is better to let a directionless kid that fell in with a bad group fuck up their life.

My argument is entirely not for freedoms. It's a matter about the ways you alter societal systems and perceptions of people by actions and forces.

It's a matter of saying, sure it may solve these issues short term in ways, but is it helping or hurting long term sociological problems that cause these kids being out in dangerous situations at late night. Laws being implemented and kept ought to be based on far wider ranges of impact judging.

So what is the negative impact of giving a low consequence way to prevent more serious crime? If a cop takes you home for breaking curfew there generally is not even a fine involved let alone jail time. Would it be better to wait until property damage has occurred and now a criminal trial is needed?

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
11-05-2015, 10:48 AM
RE: So... here's another idea people wont like.
(11-05-2015 10:42 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(11-05-2015 10:21 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  My argument is entirely not for freedoms. It's a matter about the ways you alter societal systems and perceptions of people by actions and forces.

It's a matter of saying, sure it may solve these issues short term in ways, but is it helping or hurting long term sociological problems that cause these kids being out in dangerous situations at late night. Laws being implemented and kept ought to be based on far wider ranges of impact judging.

So what is the negative impact of giving a low consequence way to prevent more serious crime? If a cop takes you home for breaking curfew there generally is not even a fine involved let alone jail time. Would it be better to wait until property damage has occurred and now a criminal trial is needed?

Problems arise from thinking that doesn't already occur and have actions occurring in this manner without the laws either way.

But as I was stating before, a significant problem isn't that these crimes occur, it's what in assisting and motivating more of these types of actions and problems in some areas to occur. A significant problem in cities can be trust and respect between said Teens and police forces. There are also times when taking a child home isn't the safest thing for that kid, and static or strict rules that are able to allow people to not care about leeway may cause more unhelpful conflict after interactions opposed to attempting to approach solutions more broadly.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2015, 10:53 AM
RE: So... here's another idea people wont like.
(11-05-2015 10:48 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(11-05-2015 10:42 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  So what is the negative impact of giving a low consequence way to prevent more serious crime? If a cop takes you home for breaking curfew there generally is not even a fine involved let alone jail time. Would it be better to wait until property damage has occurred and now a criminal trial is needed?

Problems arise from thinking that doesn't already occur and have actions occurring in this manner without the laws either way.

But as I was stating before, a significant problem isn't that these crimes occur, it's what in assisting and motivating more of these types of actions and problems in some areas to occur. A significant problem in cities can be trust and respect between said Teens and police forces. There are also times when taking a child home isn't the safest thing for that kid, and static or strict rules that are able to allow people to not care about leeway may cause more unhelpful conflict after interactions opposed to attempting to approach solutions more broadly.

So what is your solution?

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2015, 11:09 AM
RE: So... here's another idea people wont like.
(11-05-2015 10:53 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(11-05-2015 10:48 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Problems arise from thinking that doesn't already occur and have actions occurring in this manner without the laws either way.

But as I was stating before, a significant problem isn't that these crimes occur, it's what in assisting and motivating more of these types of actions and problems in some areas to occur. A significant problem in cities can be trust and respect between said Teens and police forces. There are also times when taking a child home isn't the safest thing for that kid, and static or strict rules that are able to allow people to not care about leeway may cause more unhelpful conflict after interactions opposed to attempting to approach solutions more broadly.

So what is your solution?

There isn't going to be any single solutions to opposition in views of . I'd lean to more efforts to get reasoning instead of intimidation used in protecting some areas.

I think there needs to be more blending and leaning to reach out in ways to avert creating contempt. I think laws that establish different guidelines in areas don't help blend people of these groups to seeing eye to eye, but cause them to clash more which leads to the initial conflicts that people want to lessen.

As I grew up, I never had an aversion or disdain for police/authority. But from the times when I saw it in other people from college, to random places in my 20s, or back to seeing inside high schools again, I always was curious when I saw someone say or act in a way of that nature to kinda think with them why this was how they viewed things. I think it's questions of that nature that need to be assessed in deciding laws a lot more.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2015, 11:19 AM
RE: So... here's another idea people wont like.
(11-05-2015 10:24 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote:  
(11-05-2015 10:04 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Ok everyone acts as though ever major city in the US does not have a curfew for kids under 16 already. They do. The only argument against them I have seen in this thread is "Muh freedoms" which is stupid because there are already a litany of laws specifically for the under 16 crowd, most of which if their parents are doing their jobs they will never come across. Curfew and truancy laws are not really meant for everyone because most kids don't need to be told go to school and don't be on the street at midnight on a school night. The ones that do generally don't have real parents so it is up to the state to be a surrogate. The alternative is to allow them the opportunity to break other more serious laws. Truancy and Curfew laws tend to have low or no penalties and do not result in criminal records so tell me how it is better to let a directionless kid that fell in with a bad group fuck up their life.
False dichotomies everywhere.

Give at least one example; otherwise you're just nattering and will be ignored.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2015, 11:54 AM
RE: So... here's another idea people wont like.
(11-05-2015 11:09 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  As I grew up, I never had an aversion or disdain for police/authority. But from the times when I saw it in other people from college, to random places in my 20s, or back to seeing inside high schools again, I always was curious when I saw someone say or act in a way of that nature to kinda think with them why this was how they viewed things. I think it's questions of that nature that need to be assessed in deciding laws a lot more.

I suppose we shouldn't have speed limits then. Because laws are only broken and foment contempt among certain groups anyway.

Occasional TTA returner then leaverer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
11-05-2015, 01:12 PM
RE: So... here's another idea people wont like.
It would make more sense to me that the age for curfew end at 18. For those that are 16 and emancipated, they should just have a special card or symbol on their driver's license/state ID stating so.

I personally didn't learn about curfew until I was 12 years old and I was stopped by the police while walking with friends at 3am. I probably wouldn't have gotten in too much trouble and told I was going to jail had I not lied and told them that I was 13 (thinking that would make a difference). Scariest night of my life then.

We are eternal beings. Endings are not in our destiny.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2015, 09:47 PM
RE: So... here's another idea people wont like.
(11-05-2015 08:57 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(09-05-2015 07:37 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  It would also allow police to stop youth out late at night before they cause trouble.

One major problem muffs is that even if the law applied to all people, minorities would cry about it being profiling. There were "stop and frisk" laws in some areas (NYC is one I really remember) where a cop could stop and frisk someone if they had suspicion. Guess what happened? They would mainly stop and frisk people who wore gang attire, had tattoos with known gang affiliations, and the sort and what is when Sharpton and Jackson cried racial profiling. Never mind that most of the cases, the cops were stopping people that were broadcasting their affiliation. That is the problem in the US, you can't look under the most probable stones for the vermin, you have to look under all the stones.

Racial profiling would be a minor issue (in the States anyway, the rest of the western world has progressed a little more than what 'Murica has) but this is different to "stop and frisk". You can't be sent home unless you're actually breaking the law (out after curfew) and if you have work or whatever reason to be out later the cops can't do shit. The stop and frisk is different because the cops can do it to anyway any time (from what I understand about that law).

So if you're black, 15 and out at midnight and get picked up and taken home that's less about ethnicity and more about you being out after curfew.
Don't wanna be picked up by police? Abide the law.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: